Author
Topic: Advancedboy's Designs Topic (Read 110288 times)

What aircraft would you like to be sketched? I can do a new design for an existing or theoretical program or rework my older designs. The hydroplane was my older sketch reworked.

Some possible ideas:

(1) A blended wing body bomber with stealth characteristics.(2) A supersonic propeller-driven aircraft.(3) What you think a replacement for the A-10 Thunderbolt II would look like.(4) A single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) space plane similar to the Skylon concept.(5) An aircraft that can also dive under the water like a submarine.(6) Your thoughts on what a modern, advanced descendant of the Triebflügel VTOL aircraft would look like.(7) A hypothetical anti-gravity aircraft resulting from research done during Project Greenglow.(8) An aircraft designed specifically to beat the time-to-height record.(9) An aircraft that can operate in the atmosphere of another planet like Venus or Jupiter (probably nuclear or solar-powered).(10) An aircraft that can go as fast as possible while still staying in the atmosphere.

@kryptid.1. Blended Wing ( bomber) Stealth. Sounds very tempting. I will consider sketching it. Would you like a passenger type , similar to Boeing x-48 scale model, or a military platform?2. A supersonic propeller driven aircraft is a problem as most aircraft would require jet engine to achieve such speeds. I think effectiveness of prop engines end at Mach 0 .9. I could design an aircraft with a shrouded propfan. My gut feeling tells me it is the only way to have a propeller and supersonic in one sentence. Turboprop won`t cut it. Actually, I am not a big fan of propellers. ( pun intended.)3. Actually I sketched a Thunderbolt replacement a year ago but quit the design as I was not happy with it. I could try improving on it and post it.4. SSTO plane. Sounds tempting, but limitations apply to the design as it is a very high speed platform.5. Submersible aircraft? Could you give me a reason for such an aircraft to exist?6. Triebflugel is bonkers ( in a good, bizarre way). I think Blue Origin might fill that gap.7. Antigravity aircraft wouldn`t be an exterior design issue , rather a mechanical issue. As I don`t know the principles of how the antigravity operates, it is hard to surmise its shape. All I can speculate is that such a craft would still be a subject to air drag. My personal intuition tells me that antigravity alone is nothing, you need propulsion as well. Antigravity sounds like compensating an existing force, while propulsion is an internal source of energy within a craft. Personally I think an air balloon with laughing gas is an antigravity aircraft as it compensates gravity with lighter than air gas in it. Yet they don`t fly zig zags or hyperspeeds as claimed by Bob Lazar or his sidekick John Lear( John is not well in his basement lately, recently installed A/C though). I wonder when Ben Rich said we are light years ahead and we could take ETs home did he mean money laundering schemes under project classification or he meant real aircraft:) Would antigravity work similarly to Fouche's claim of rotating Mercury plasma? I have my doubts about Fouche. When I talked to him about how would the superfast TR-3B deal with air friction( drag) at high speeds he started talking about electronic plasma field similar to one invented by Russian scientists( unnamed). I think plasma field is not enough to compensate claimed speeds within air theater. So do we need a circular space within an aircraft to place the rotating plasma tank or is anti-gravity a different animal after all- I don`t know. I feel that we can not create antigravity device, but we could one day build a gravity disrupting device, a device that actually doesn`t directly deal with gravity but intensifies an existing force that is co-existing with gravity and disrupts/intensifies its force. The secret of gravity probably lies within mass, rotation and electric force.8. Do you mean the fastest altitude gaining aircraft or something different?9. For an aircraft to operate in atmosphere of Jupiter I would go nuclear as it is is energy efficient and in case of crash there is not any damage to any beings. Designwise it has a lot of interpretation.10. Record braking atmospheric aircraft. Again, such an aircraft would have limited design options as it is subject to extreme air drag and would adopt the design of currently existing hyperspeed design platforms. I could try to design a pulse detonation wave engined craft:) which one would you like to be sketched first?

1. Blended Wing ( bomber) Stealth. Sounds very tempting. I will consider sketching it. Would you like a passenger type , similar to Boeing x-48 scale model, or a military platform?

Something shaped (generally) like the X-48, but sized-up and modified to be a bomber. Some serrated edges and edge alignment for stealth.

Quote

2. A supersonic propeller driven aircraft is a problem as most aircraft would require jet engine to achieve such speeds. I think effectiveness of prop engines end at Mach 0 .9. I could design an aircraft with a shrouded propfan. My gut feeling tells me it is the only way to have a propeller and supersonic in one sentence. Turboprop won`t cut it. Actually, I am not a big fan of propellers. ( pun intended.)

Experiments with the XF-88B demonstrated that propellers, if designed properly, can produce positive thrust above the sound barrier. If I remember correctly, the propeller was 71% efficient at speeds slightly above Mach 1. Modern design techniques would probably make it easier, such as utilizing area rule.

Quote

3. Actually I sketched a Thunderbolt replacement a year ago but quit the design as I was not happy with it. I could try improving on it and post it.

Sounds good.

Quote

4. SSTO plane. Sounds tempting, but limitations apply to the design as it is a very high speed platform.

Yeah, which is why Skylon has to be so big with most of its volume taken up by propellant.

Quote

5. Submersible aircraft? Could you give me a reason for such an aircraft to exist?

The wingtip ramjets might conceivably be replaced with something that can tolerate lower speeds such as small turbojets or turbofans, or you could even make the rotor powered by an engine in the fuselage in addition to a counter-rotor to offset torque.

Quote

7. Antigravity aircraft wouldn`t be an exterior design issue , rather a mechanical issue. As I don`t know the principles of how the antigravity operates, it is hard to surmise its shape. All I can speculate is that such a craft would still be a subject to air drag. My personal intuition tells me that antigravity alone is nothing, you need propulsion as well. Antigravity sounds like compensating an existing force, while propulsion is an internal source of energy within a craft. Personally I think an air balloon with laughing gas is an antigravity aircraft as it compensates gravity with lighter than air gas in it. Yet they don`t fly zig zags or hyperspeeds as claimed by Bob Lazar or his sidekick John Lear( John is not well in his basement lately, recently installed A/C though). I wonder when Ben Rich said we are light years ahead and we could take ETs home did he mean money laundering schemes under project classification or he meant real aircraft:) Would antigravity work similarly to Fouche's claim of rotating Mercury plasma? I have my doubts about Fouche. When I talked to him about how would the superfast TR-3B deal with air friction( drag) at high speeds he started talking about electronic plasma field similar to one invented by Russian scientists( unnamed). I think plasma field is not enough to compensate claimed speeds within air theater. So do we need a circular space within an aircraft to place the rotating plasma tank or is anti-gravity a different animal after all- I don`t know. I feel that we can not create antigravity device, but we could one day build a gravity disrupting device, a device that actually doesn`t directly deal with gravity but intensifies an existing force that is co-existing with gravity and disrupts/intensifies its force. The secret of gravity probably lies within mass, rotation and electric force.

It's true that we don't know how actual anti-gravity would work, but it would be interesting considering what direction aircraft design could go if we were freed up from a need for wings, rotors or balloons.

Quote

8. Do you mean the fastest altitude gaining aircraft or something different?

Yes. Something like the McDonnell Douglas Streak Eagle or Sukhoi P-42. Except without the need to be agile or carry weapons.

Quote

9. For an aircraft to operate in atmosphere of Jupiter I would go nuclear as it is is energy efficient and in case of crash there is not any damage to any beings. Designwise it has a lot of interpretation.

That would make sense. Alternatively, a relatively normal jet or propeller engine would work on Jupiter, but in reverse: the atmosphere of Jupiter is the fuel (hydrogen) and you carry tanks of oxidizer (like liquid oxygen or dinitrogen tetroxide) on board your plane. Unless it was lighter-than-air (a difficult prospect in a hydrogen atmosphere), it would need somewhere to land eventually since chemical engines use up fuel/oxidizer quickly. Nuclear is probably the best.

Quote

10. Record braking atmospheric aircraft. Again, such an aircraft would have limited design options as it is subject to extreme air drag and would adopt the design of currently existing hyperspeed design platforms. I could try to design a pulse detonation wave engined craft:)

Most likely, yes. I recently wondered just how high an air-breathing aircraft could fly. It would have to be very fast in order for dynamic pressure to make up for the low density in the high atmosphere. My basic guess is that the upper altitude and speed for any such aircraft are limited by high temperatures.

Quote

which one would you like to be sketched first?

It doesn't matter to me. Whichever one suits your mood the most or, perhaps, whichever you think would challenge your skills as a designer or artist the most.

For the first design I decided to go for a blended wing design. It is a double fuselage , blended wing refueling aircraft. It is inspired by Manta Ray fish and mimmicks some of its elements. On top view I spent more time developing the shape, the ink sketches were done first that is why some elements differ. I could either work detailed ISO view or rework the design completely if it is not satisfactory. Anyway for one view the design should be finalised so that different rotation views would not change elements later. Refueling hose would look similar to Manta Ray`s tail. Paint scheme could adopt the spotty pigmentation as seen on Mantas.

Nice one. A multiple fuselage design could be good for extra fuel storage in a tanker, although both fuselages would have to be emptied at the same rate in order to prevent a shift in the center of gravity. It probably wouldn't be too hard to implement, though. A single, large fuselage could probably accomplish the same thing for less drag (less surface area), but the double fuselage design would have the benefit of additional span-loading and taking up less hangar space because it's shorter.

Hi there, I `ve been away for some time, so decided to post some sketches. I was asked if I could rework the current Toyota Avalon. So here is the original by Toyota and my reworked version. Some aircraft sketches will come as well.

6th generation fighter. I decided to leave vertical stabilizers with a possibility to pivot them at positive and negative angles or aligned with the main wing. To withstand extreme G forces the stabilizers are attached to a rotating hub around engine assembly. Without any stabilizers aerodynamic stability in manoeuvers could be compromised. That`s just my 2 cents.